NOTE 2.

THE DATE OF THE LETTER OF JAMES. §30.

It is generally acknowledged by those who accept this epistle as a genuine writing of the Apostolic Age that it was written by James, the brother of our Lord, mentioned in Gal. I: 19, and for many years the head of the church in Jerusalem. It is probable that he died in the seventh decade of the first century; according to Josephus, Ant. 20. 9. 1 (cf. also Eusebius, H. E. 2. 23), just after the death of Festus, hence in 62 A.D.1 On the other hand, the wide dispersion of Jewish Christians implied in the letter (1:1; 4:13) forbids a date earlier than about the fifth decade. Between the fifth and seventh decades, then, we may say between 45 and 62, the letter was probably written. And with this early date further internal evidence agrees.

The

The determination of a more exact date turns largely upon the intent of the passage concerning faith and works (2:14-26). Is it intended to correct a misapprehension of Paul's doctrine set forth in the letters to the Galatians and Romans, and is it hence later than these? or is it directed wholly against an error springing up very early on Jewish-Christian soil, and in no way connected with the controversy over the place of the Gentiles in the church? probability seems to lie on the side of the early date. The fact that the teaching of James is entirely harmonious with that of Paul, while his language is almost directly contrary to Paul's, suggests that he wrote before the controversy arose in which Paul took part. After that time he would probably have avoided the apparent contradiction with one with whose opinions he was in essential agreement.

Nor is it likely that there was, as early as 62 and among Jewish Christians, any such acceptance of an antinomian misrepresentation of Pauline doctrine as the argument for the later date supposes. The error corrected seems to be one which sprang up on Jewish-Christian soil, the product of the natural tendency to substitute forms and words for reality in religion. But if the letter was uninfluenced by the controversy over the place of the Gentiles in the church, it probably antedates the council in Jerusalem, and belongs between the years 45 and 50 A.D.

Literature: WEISS, Introduction to the New Testament, §37. 3; GLOAG, Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, p. 59 ff.; ALFORD, Introduction, in his Greek Testament, Vol. IV.; HUTHER, in Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament; MAYOR, The Epistle of St. James, Introduction, pp. cix. – cli. The above writers defend the early date. Among those who adopt a later

1 But concerning the genuineness of this passage, and concerning other evidence, see SCHÜRER, Jewish People, Div. I., Vol. II., p. 186 f. Contra, HORT, Judaistic Christianity, p. 148 f.

date, BLEEK, Introduction to the New Testament, §206 (Mangold in his edition of Bleek adopts the early date); FARRAR, Early Days of Christianity, chap. xxi.; and HORT, Judaistic Christianity, p. 147 ff., regard it as genuine, and assign it to about the year 61; DAVIDSON, Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 2d ed., Vol. I., p. 309 ff., denies its genuineness and assigns it to a post-Pauline Christian. JÜLICHER, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 140 ff., assigns it to the second century. Mayor discusses at length the arguments of those who defend the late date.

NOTE 3.

THE TITLE OF PART III.

The title given to Part III. is only approximately descriptive of the period as it is presented in the New Testament records. It is too narrow in two respects; for the record describes not only some missionary labor outside the territories named in the title, but also some events which can be included under the term missions only when it is used in a somewhat loose sense. Various other titles were considered, each of which seemed to have some advantage, but none of which seemed as nearly correct as the one chosen. Thus "Organized Missions to the Gentiles," though emphasizing certain characteristics of this period, suggests that the work described was wholly among Gentiles, whereas the record gives a very different account of the matter. "The Missionary Journeys of the Apostle Paul " is a plain prose title, nearly accurate, if we consider Acts only, but open to the objection that the application of it to a period preceding the long Cæsarean and Roman imprisonment seems to deny that the apostle made the journeys which the pastoral epistles imply. Thus to each title that suggested itself there was some objection, and "Missions to Asia Minor, Greece, and Macedonia" was adopted as being, despite the fact that it is not quite accurate, less objectionable than any other brief title.

NOTE 4.

THE TIME OF PETER'S VISIT TO ANTIOCH. §38.

The only passage that mentions Peter's visit to Antioch is Gal. 2: 11-21, and this makes no definite statement respecting its time. It must of course have preceded the writing of the letter (on the date of the letter see Note 7), and it seems only reasonable to assume that it followed the council at Jerusalem, which Paul mentions before it (Gal. 2: 1-10). Since Paul was present at Antioch at the time, or, rather, perhaps, came to Antioch while Peter was there, we have to choose between the sojourn of Paul at Antioch recorded in Acts 15: 35 and that referred to in 18: 22, 23, these being the only visits of Paul to Antioch after the council at Jerusalem that are known to

us.

Its position on our page implies that it occurred at the earlier time. But this is adopted, not because there is positive evidence for this earlier date, but because, there being no decisive evidence for the later date, it seems best to put it in close connection with the paragraph (Gal. 2: 1-10, §36) with which Paul himself connects it. The later occasion, however, is in itself quite as probable as the earlier. It is altogether possible that when Paul wrote to the Galatians the conflict with Peter was a very recent event. (Cf. Note 7, p. 216.)

NOTE 5.

THE DATE OF THE FIRST LETTER TO THE THESSALONIANS. §46.

The first three chapters of this letter (see especially 1:9, 10; 2:17-3:6) show that it was written not long after Paul first visited Thessalonica and preached the gospel there, having come thither from Philippi (2:2). It appears, moreover, that since leaving Thessalonica he had been at Athens (3:1), whence he had sent Timothy back to Thessalonica to bring him information concerning the state of the church. Still more definitely 3:6 shows that the letter was written just after Timothy's return bringing good tidings. From the salutation (1:1) we see that Silas also was with the apostle when he wrote. But he either was not with him at Athens, or, like Timothy, he was sent by the apostle on some mission, since the departure of Timothy left Paul alone (3: 1). It follows, therefore, that Silas as well as Timothy had recently joined the apostle when he wrote the letter, and probably both of them at the point from which he wrote it.

Now from Phil. 4:15 we learn that "in the beginning of the gospel" when Paul" departed from Macedonia,” i.e. soon after his first missionary tour through Macedonia, the Philippians, and they only, sent him money for his support. Evidently, therefore, some messenger from Philippi came to Paul not far from the time at which this first letter to the Thessalonians was written. It is certainly natural to assume that this messenger was Silas. Once more, we learn from 2 Cor. 11:9 that when Paul was first in Corinth the brethren, when they came from Macedonia, supplied his wants. This, in the light of Phil. 4: 15, can only refer to the gift of the Philippians. Almost certainly, therefore, the point at which the messengers from Macedonia, Timothy and (probably) Silas, joined him was Corinth.

It appears, therefore, quite certain that this letter was written on a missionary tour which embraced Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, and a further point not named in the letter, but quite surely Corinth. This was the apostle's first missionary journey through these regions, or at least the first which included Thessalonica. The letter itself was written from a point on the journey beyond Athens, doubtless from Corinth, and soon after the arrival of Timothy from Macedonia, in all probability also of Silas, the latter being the bearer of a gift from the Philippians.

When we turn to the book of Acts it is evident that the arrival of Silas and Timothy mentioned in 18: 5 corresponds, in every respect in which it is possible to make a comparison, to that which is implied in First Thessalonians. The letter therefore belongs chronologically not at the end of the year and six months (18: 11) spent in Corinth, but near the beginning of this period. Its position on our page should be understood to mean that the letter falls, not at the end of the period covered by the preceding paragraph, but in the course of it, and indeed near the beginning of it. Stated in years, the letter belongs near the end of 52 A.D.

Literature: GLOAG, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, pp. 91 f., 116 f.; GODET, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, pp. 146 f., 162 f.; also introductions to the various commentaries, and relevant sections in introductions to the New Testament.

NOTE 6.

THE DATE OF THE SECOND LETTER TO THE THESSALONIANS. $46.

The names of Silas and Timothy are joined with that of Paul in the salutation of this letter (1 : 1) as in that of the first epistle. But Silas was with Paul, as far as we learn from the letters of the apostle or from the book of Acts, only on his second missionary journey. This of itself suggests that the second letter to the Thessalonians was written no long time after the first. To this conclusion the character of the letter itself furnishes confirmatory evidence. The chief theme of the second letter-the coming of the Lord (chap. 2)—is one which was discussed also in the first letter, and it was apparently a misunderstanding of the first letter that furnished occasion for the second. If, then, the first letter belongs to the early part of the eighteen months in Corinth, recorded in Acts 18: 11, the second letter probably belongs within the same period, only a few months later than the first letter; hence, probably in the year 53.

Literature: There is little difference of opinion as to the date among those who admit the genuineness of the letter, though a few writers have held this letter to be in reality earlier than our First Thessalonians. On the basis of a denial of its genuineness, a later date is assigned by HOLTZMANN, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 3d ed., p. 213; WEIZSÄCKER, The Apostolic Age, E. T., Vol. I., p. 295 ff. P. SCHMIDT, Der Erste Thessalonicherbrief, nebst einem Excurs über den Zweiten gleichnamigen Brief, p. III ff., regards it as a genuine letter with interpolations of later matter; 2: 3-12 he assigns to the latter part of the seventh decade. Among recent writers, its genuineness and early date are maintained by JÜLICHER, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 40 ff.; GODET, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, p. 164 ff.; GLOAG, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, p. 107 ff.; BORNEMANN, in Meyer's Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 6th ed., pp. 498-538.

NOTE 7.

THE DATE OF THE LETTER TO THE GALATIANS.

§47.

Within certain limits the letter itself indicates its date clearly. Thus in 2: I the apostle refers to a visit made to Jerusalem after fourteen years, following another made three years after his conversion. The precise significance of these data is discussed in Note 1, on The Chronology of the Apostolic Age (see p. 204). It is there argued that this second visit probably occurred fifteen years after the apostle's conversion. It cannot at the least be less than about thirteen years; and, since it was followed by a visit of Peter to Antioch, - which was itself already a past event when Paul wrote to the Galatians (see Gal. 2: 11 ff.), - the letter was evidently written scarcely less, probably more, than fifteen years after Paul's conversion. If we identify the second visit to Jerusalem mentioned by Paul with that recorded in Acts 15: 1–29, as we have already done in Note I,- we are able, on the basis of the data given in the book of Acts, to assign this second visit to the year 50 (circa), and the letter itself to a somewhat later date.

Nearly the same result is reached from the reference in 4: 13 to the former of two visits made by the apostle to the Galatians. This implies that he had been twice in Galatia, hence had made two missionary tours into Asia Minor, before writing this letter. The second of these journeys is mentioned in Acts 16: 6, and occurred, as we have seen (p. 204), about 51 or 52 A.D. The letter, of course, was written somewhat later. Thus it appears that the letter was written not only after the council at Jerusalem, but after the first portion, at least, of the second missionary journey; stated in years, it can hardly have been earlier than 51 or 52 A.D., and was probably somewhat later.

On the other side, it may be considered nearly certain, on the basis of internal evidence, that the Galatian letter was written before that to the Romans. But it is generally agreed that this letter was written from Corinth, during Paul's three months' stay there on his third missionary journey (Acts 20:3). (Cf. Note 11.) This, according to the most probable chronology, was in the early part of 58 A.D. Thus we are able to locate the letter to the Galatians as having been written later than the early part of the second missionary journey, and earlier than the last part of the third missionary journey; or, to state it in years, between 51 and 58 A.D.

The more exact determination of the date of the letter depends upon the solution of the difficult question, recently subjected to a fresh investigation, who the Galatians were to whom Paul wrote, and where the churches of the Galatians were located. Two opinions are held: First, that the term Galatia in the salutation is used in the ethnological sense, i.e. designates the territory inhabited by the descendants of those Gallic tribes which in the third cen